Topic: Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers) - page 20. (Read 46564 times)

Longest is a superlative adjective. By its very definition it refers to one thing. You cannot have two longest anything.

No, Satoshi implemented the 1MB maxBlockSize.... not that his opinion should matter more than other devs.


This is very dangerous way of thinking . Satoshi shouldn't be trusted any more than any other competent developer.
We should make changes based upon reason and evidence and not be swayed by authoritarian leaders or heros.

If Satoshi Nakamoto comes here, and tells me to remove His 1MB limit, I will do it immediately.

ummm..
didnt satoshi disapear in 2010 and the 1mb block limit get implemented after he disapeared..??

hint.. may 2013.. 1mb rule implemented

if miners refuse to build bigger blocks.. then even nodes with 2mb limit.. will still accept blocks of 0.2mb, 0.5mb, 0.99mb.. because its not a rule of over 1mb but less than2mb.. its its a rule of anything from 0 to 2mb.

nodes with 2mb limit wont throw any blocks out.. yet segwit would..
so the consensus would be if segwit had 95% users.. blocks would be all under 1mb and both segwit and 2mb nodes would happily talk to each other. where if 2mb node accidentally accepted a >1mb block.. it would eventually get orphaned off once they resync to consensus..

but if segwit only had 5% consensus.. and miners finally decided to go with large block due to 95% large block consensus..  then segwit would end up throwing away lots of blocks, and because segwit is throwing away lots of blocks and being left behind where they cant sync with consensus because consensus holds large blocks.. then segwit will need to adapt by finally upping the limit to be part of it again.
there isnt an altcoin.. there is only blockheight.. and whoever has the heighest height wins where the loser will forever be screaming to the next block to resync to and then rejecting it, ending up not resyncing and left at the curbside.

EG majority of nodes are 2mb running alongside segwit. where some miners are outputting blocks >1mb
13:56:02 miner A: height 400,000 size0.9mb segwit & 2mb implementations both accept
13:56:05 miner B: height 400,000 size0.9mb segwit & 2mb implementations both reject (sorry you lose, your not fast enough)

14:06:02 miner C: height 400,001 size1.025 2mb implementations accept, but segwit rejects
14:06:05 miner B: height 400,001 size0.99mb segwit accepts

14:16:02 miner B: height 400,002 size0.99mb segwit accepts, 2mb implementation accepts and orphans minerC 400,001 as its not part of miner B's block chain
14:16:05 miner A: height 400,002 size0.99mb segwit & 2mb implementations both reject (sorry you lose, your not fast enough)

14:26:02 miner C: height 400,003 size1.025 2mb implementations accept, but segwit rejects
14:26:05 miner B: height 400,003 size0.99mb segwit accepts but 2mb implementations reject (not fast enough)

14:36:02 miner C: height 400,004 size1.025 2mb implementations accept, but segwit rejects
14:36:05 miner B: height 400,004 size0.99mb segwit accepts but 2mb implementations reject (not fast enough)

14:46:02 miner B: height 400,005 size0.99mb segwit accepts, 2mb implementation accepts and orphans minerC 400,004 and 003 as its not part of miner B's block chain
14:46:05 miner A: height 400,005 size0.99mb segwit & 2mb implementations both reject (sorry you lose, your not fast enough)
this would leave miners knowing that because there is no consensus.. sooner or later thier >1mb blocks will get orphaned.. so they stay inline with <1mb just to get some wins that will hold..

now imagine the consensus IS with large blocks
13:56:02 miner A: height 400,000 size0.9mb segwit & 2mb implementations both accept
13:56:05 miner B: height 400,000 size1.025mb segwit & 2mb implementations both reject (sorry you lose, your not fast enough)

14:06:02 miner C: height 400,001 size1.025 2mb implementations accept, but segwit rejects
14:06:05 miner B: height 400,001 size1.025 segwit rejects

14:16:02 miner B: height 400,002 1.025 segwit rejects, 2mb implementation accepts
14:16:05 miner A: height 400,002 size0.99mb segwit & 2mb implementations both reject
segwit rejects because miner A block history has other blocks of 1.025 in the past so segwit rejects it on principle. and 2mb nodes reject because its not solved first

14:26:02 miner C: height 400,003 size1.025 2mb implementations accept, but segwit rejects
14:26:05 miner B: height 400,003 size0.99mb segwit & 2mb implementations both reject
segwit rejects because miner B block history has other blocks of 1.025 in the past so segwit rejects it on principle. and 2mb nodes reject because its not solved first

14:36:02 miner C: height 400,004 size1.025 2mb implementations accept, but segwit rejects
14:36:05 miner B: height 400,004 size0.99mb segwit & 2mb implementations both reject
segwit rejects because miner B block history has other blocks of 1.025 in the past so segwit rejects it on principle. and 2mb nodes reject because its not solved first

14:46:02 miner B: height 400,005 size0.99mb 2mb implementation accepts but segwit reject s
segwit rejects because miner B block history has other blocks of 1.025 in the past so segwit rejects it on principle.
14:46:05 miner A: height 400,005 size0.99mb segwit & 2mb implementations both reject
segwit rejects because miner A block history has other blocks of 1.025 in the past so segwit rejects it on principle. and 2mb nodes reject because its not solved first

so now 2mb implementation is at height 005.. but segwit is left unable to sync and stuck at 000, and because segwit is only 5% of consensus no one cares..
but sgwit has a plan.. they can either die out by not bing able to transact as they cant get blocks anymore.. or they can up the limit and be able to sync..

again its not about creation of altcoins.. its about syncing.. depending on consensus, there want be 2 coins.. there will be either a temporary for that eventually gets orphaned.. forcing miners to stay inline to prevent orphans.. or the flip side.. the loser cant sync as they reject blocks that dont fit their rules.. leaving them in the past

in short.
if segwit wins the consensus 19 implementations are not rendered useless but are just passing the parcel of unknown data. requiring alot of code changes to become full validators again

if 2mb wins the consensus 19 implementations continue to work and segwit is rendered useless.. stuck and unable to get new blocks and not playing pass the parcel but instead left sat in the corner doing nothing.. but.. requiring only changing a 1 into a 2 on one line of code to be part of the chain again.(much easier to implement)

to be honest id rather have 20 different implementations that are ready for change that can all happily still accept blocks, even if those blocks are all sub 1mb.. allowing them to be ready for any surprises next year... rather than to force people into using segwit which not only limits choice but also means the 19 implementations are relaying transactions that are 'magically' treated as valid, but may actually be nefarios transactions.. basically passing the parcel that can contain a bomb and not realise it because they are no longer full validation nodes..where the only full validation node is segwit. the single and only choice..

the logical solution for both parties is both have 2mb.. and both can work happily together. then later in a few months or year.. then miners make bigger blocks because they know there wont be orphans

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

I agree with watashi-kokoto. He/she is wise 

"Bitcoin" already has become a new alt twice over by that definition. No one has a monopoly on what is and isn't bitcoin despite its crypto-anarchist roots. For all we know the future of bitcoin could become one of centralized big blocks controlled by a few nodes ran by organizations like coinbase/bitpay/circle/bitstamp that impose KYC/AML and blacklists on those nodes(like they do already) and the economic majority considers that to be called "bitcoin" ... I will stop using such a currency, and will probably have to use an alt by a different name.

Yes. It's the original rules introduced by Satoshi Nakamoto.

Satoshi Nakamoto introduced his 1MB limit to prevent the dust attack also known as the first "stress test".

If you disagree with Satoshi's rules, you're getting on a slippery slope.

It begins with a block size. Is there so much use? Who knows? Who cares?

Next the block time can be put into question. Do we need faster confirmations? But this affects the reward schedule itself. And so on.

In the end we have inflationary paradise no more different than the bailout-plagued system of today.

So the "current rules for Bitcoin" are set in stone unless the directors of the core repository say otherwise?
Do I have your position understood correctly?

In short:

Classic, XT, ... REKT

Economic majority is difficult to exactly quantify  (I.E... we don't know if the 500 k to 1 million bitcoins Satoshi controls is lost , controlled by one individuals or multiple individuals ) but is an important concept nonetheless.

Case in point --- if all the bitcoin processors , exchanges, and banks accepted one fork over the other than the other fork instantly loses most of its utility and becomes merely speculative asset like many alts. This doesn't mean that it will necessarily be worth less than the chain with the most utility but likely it will be worth much less.

***There are some extreme scenarios where enough interest is within the minor chain such as them switching over to an ASIC proof PoW algo scheme with most of the talented developers backing it which may convince enough people to value the minor chain with temporarily less utility more.

What vote?

'Economic majority' is a phantom concept.

After a hard fork, there will be 2 competing currencies. Each one with it's longest valid chain, each one with it's group of users.

If the biggest nodes and the biggest miners start to use only one of the competing currencies, it doesn't mean that currency will be more valuable.

The altcoin is the one that diverges from the current network rules of the Bitcoin currency. Is this hard to understand?

Which one came first? The altcoin or the Bitcoin?

If you're "not worried", I wonder why you feel the need to refer to a forked
version of Bitcoin as altcoin, assuming that the fork wouldn't happen
with at least 51% consensus, probably 75%.    If 75% of the miners voted
on new consensus rules, which version is really the "altcoin"?

The fact you feel the need to label a contending change an altcoin
feels like rhetoric and defensive.

Not nodes, not miners, but people.

If a new type of gold was discovered, blue gold, who would decide which is the real gold? Is it the old yellow gold or the shinier blue gold? You are saying that the miners would decide this... or that the smelters would decide... or the merchants... No. The average Joe will decide. There will be a market for old yellow gold and a market for shiny blue gold. I think average Joe will think blue gold is a scam and won't accept it.

The same for Bitcoin. Most people don't know what a block is. They will accept the Bitcoins as they are now.

Which is exactly why developers use a rough approximation of finding consensus by an indirect means of 75-95% of the last 1k mined blocks. Just because the number is difficult to quantify doesn't mean the concept is invalid or that a rough idea of the economic consensus cannot be gathered.

Why do you think bitcoin Classic (correctly) lists both large bagholders and merchants and exchanges on their homepage that support their implementation? The reality is those companies and bagholders are more important than the miners when determining the valid chain. While it is impossible to accurately know the exact vote of large investors due to bitcoins pseudonymous nature we can still approximate the will of a large part of the economic majority by watching them actually start switching over to the new implementations.

How is economic majority status identified?  How is economic minority status identified?

How is economic majority measured and quantified?

Until it is quantified, "economic majority" is not a number that can be applied to any discussion of vote or preference.  Until it is quantified, "economic majority" is just a vague unmeasured mass, a word thrown around in philosophical discussions or policy discussions.  While the discussions may be educational, the use of "economic majority" is not going to contribute to the resolution of anything as long as it remains unquantified.

No reason to create unneeded conspiracies as I support cores scaling plan.
Are you aware that not all 2 nodes are equal?

When discussing the economic majority of nodes we are simply pointing out the differences in quality and influence of certain nodes over others. I.E.... 1 node controlled by an exchange has far more of a vote than 1k amazon ec2 nodes spun up without economic actors behind them.

This may sound undemocratic but is very important for the security of the network (preventing a sybil attack of nodes creating a coup) and there are many aspects of the bitcoin consensus system which isn't democratic at all (anarchistic consensus through meritocracy) and this is a good thing.

I don't understand what is with this phantom concept of 'economic majority'. As far as I can tell, it has been created by the big blocks shills in order to help their propaganda efforts.

It doesn't even make sense. Majority of what? Are we talking about economics or elections here?

The longest valid chain is the longest one that follows the network rules of the current Bitcoin currency, the one that is accepted by people, the one that has a lot of liquidity behind it (can be exchanged for other currencies). After a potential blockchain fork, which you support, you will have 2 longest valid chains (and 2 sets of consensus rules). One will be considered valid by many, it's currency will be accepted by many people, will have a lot of liquidity behind it. Hashing power does not matter much, it is the means to provide security.

In the scenario of your dreams, hardfork, 99% of hashpower with the Classic chain, Classic still won't win if it's currency will not be accepted by people. The 1% miners would be mining $10.000 valued coins, while the 99% Classic miners would be mining $0.01 valued coins. Eventually, those stupid Classic miners will switch back to the more valued coin.

I am not worried. Bitcoin Classic is #REKT. People accept Bitcoin, not forked altcoins.